The Neolithic, or Agricultural Revolution, is one of the four great turning points in human history (don't ask, we'll get to that next year!) Your knowledge of Jared Diamond's GG&S will serve you well. I look forward to reading your posts.

And so I have discovered Bingham's Place. Tomorrow is the reading check, but my question might apply more to the open-ended response so I will ask it anyway.

BPQ4: "The Agricultural Revolution provides evidence for 'progress' in human affairs." How would you evaluate this statement?

Progress
- insane population growth
- dominance over other species
- technological innovation, such as pottery, textiles, metallurgy (I think it's worth mentioning how the secondary products revolution added to the technological explosion. When ancient peoples discovered that animals could do more than just be slaughtered, they gained access to resources such as hide, milk, fertilizer, labor, etc.)
- controllable food supply (and the beneficial consequences of food surplus)

Not
- social inequality
- nutrition of agricultural diet was less than that of Paleolithic diet
- health decline (large populations opened doors to epidemics, emergence of animal-borne diseases)
- vulnerable to famine
- humankind's impact (mutilation?) on environment increased

Reply

Bingham

5/8/2016 05:18:21 pm

I'm impressed, excellent answer. And you're right, this will be more help at the end of the week.

Reply

Yasmeen Gaber

5/9/2016 05:53:59 am

I definitely agree with all of that, but progress is such a subjective term that social inequality (while not necessarily positive) could be considered progress because the inequality that was created through agricultural revolutions led to the very prominent trajectory of social inequality through the evolution of chiefdoms and kingdoms, and through Chinese hierarchical systems that relief on serfs to farm land for nobility. So I guess my question is, what sort of "progress" is asked in this question?

Reply

Amy Vaughan

5/11/2016 09:03:16 pm

I struggled with the defining "progress" as well, Yasmeen. I decided to define it as advancement/change (positive or negative in the eyes of the society it pertains to). Because of this, I would consider the content in both of Eliza's charts as progress. Hopefully this is fine, since the question doesn't necessarily call for a counter-argument to the included quote so much as an explanation.

Yasmeen Gaber

5/12/2016 11:09:45 am

Okay, so I guess it's not asking for as much of a T-chart comparison as just everything on either side listed together as change?

Eliza Pillsbury

5/8/2016 04:26:37 pm

Also, out of curiosity, how did the people of the Andes region domesticate guinea pigs?

Reply

Bingham

5/8/2016 05:21:30 pm

I have no idea. I presume as all animals are domesticated, through selective breeding and exploring their willingness to eat vegetable mater and live communally with others of their species. Needless to say, Guinea pigs didn't prove to be very consequential. I'm mean, they ain't no horse!

Reply

Amy Vaughan

5/12/2016 04:13:54 pm

Okay, I am going to take a stab at BPQ#3: Was the Agricultural Revolution inevitable? Why did it occur so late in the story of humankind?

I would argue that the Agricultural Revolution was indeed inevitable. Warming climate along with active hunting of large mammals resulted in their extinction, which meant that the growing populations of humans needed to figure out another way to feed themselves. However, the warming climate also allowed for the flourishing of cereal grains which were domesticatable crops with a huge role in many successful agricultural societies. Humans had accumulated some knowledge on plants and animals from their Paleolithic practices, and this acted as preparation for the Agricultural Revolution and domestication. Additionally, several locations around the world (ex: Mesoamerica, Fertile Crescent, China) experienced separate and independent Agricultural Revolutions at around the same time. This seems to imply that the Agricultural Revolution was inevitable.
So in review, reasons why the Agricultural Revolution was inevitable:
-warming climate took away the humans' food source (large mammals) and supplied a new one (domesticatable cereal grains)
- Paleolithic humans accumulated knowledge on plants and animals which in turn prepared them for domestication
- The first Agricultural Revolutions occurred independently at around the same time. Coincidence?? I think not...

This is related to why the Agricultural Revolution occurred so late in the history of humans in that its beginning depended heavily upon the end of the most recent Ice Age. The Agricultural Revolution would have occurred earlier had the environmental conditions been right.

Wow that was long! If I left anything out or if you disagree, please leave a reply. :)

Reply

Bingham

5/12/2016 04:57:19 pm

Great answer. But check your "separate and independent" list carefully.

Reply

Amy Vaughan

5/12/2016 05:54:25 pm

I thought that Mesoamerica, the Fertile Crescent, and China (along with Saharan and Subsaharan Africa, Highland New Guinea, the Andes region, and the eastern woodlands of North America) all experienced their Agricultural breakthroughs independently/without influence from each other?

Yasmeen Gaber

5/12/2016 04:57:01 pm

Alright, I'm still a little shaky on Big Picture Question #1, but I'll just dive in with my own interpretation, and if anyone sees this before the test, hopefully they can steer me in the right direction:

The Agricultural Revolution proved to be a decisive turning point in history because of the tremendous innovation that accompanied the widespread adoption of agrarian systems over Paleolithic hunter-gatherer lifestyles. For example, the domestication of plants and animals through selective breeding for the purposes of agriculture made humans more dominant as a species. Also, in addition to animal and plant domestication, humans drastically altered the environment through such agriculture techniques as irrigation, and through the plowing of fields and the harvest of plants. Agriculture also led to the development of interdependent human communities, such as çatalhüyük, and the development of the specialization of labor, which led to the birth of chiefdoms, hierarchical systems and social inequality, which have shaped human history for centuries to follow the Neolithic Revolution. The development of agriculture produced more food, which caused the human population to grow exponentially, beginning a long trend of population explosion and more intensely making human a dominant mammalian species.

Thoughts? Feelings? Emotions? Let me know!

Reply

Yasmeen Gaber

5/12/2016 05:00:12 pm

I should also add that the Agricultural Revolution led the Secondary Products Revolution, which created more uses of animals and plants alike, with new inventions and the widespread industry of metallurgy rising, as evident in the early Chinese agricultural village of Banpo.

Reply

Bingham

5/12/2016 05:19:41 pm

Well, I'm a little choked up, in a proud parent sort of way.

Reply

Yasmeen Gaber

5/12/2016 05:28:20 pm

I guess that means my answer was sufficient??

Reply

Amy Vaughan

5/12/2016 05:48:48 pm

I agree with you completely about the first part of BPQ1. It also asks for evidence arguing against the agricultural revolution being considered a turning point in human history. I would argue that the transition from Paleolithic societies to agrarian societies was too spread out to be considered a turning point, and that there are still societies today who practice hunting and gathering (ex: Hadza and parts of New Guinea). Also, hunter gatherers were collecting knowledge on plants and animals that would eventually help with domestication long before the Agricultural Revolution began. What do you think???

Yasmeen Gaber

5/12/2016 05:58:18 pm

I was mostly having a hard time coming up with arguments against it, considering that Strayer mostly offers evidence to support the claim. Thank you for reminding me of all of that information, I probably would not have recalled it myself. That all looks really thorough and complete, you should be fine for the test tomorrow with that level of information :)

Amy Vaughan

5/12/2016 06:20:28 pm

I compiled all of the questions into a Google Doc if anyone wants to print them out and practice physically writing out your answers instead of just typing them. Hopefully the link works...

This is a clarification for Margin Question #6 which poses the comparison question "How did Chiefdoms differ from Stateless Agricultural Village Societies?"

My analysis lead me to this answer-

Sateless Agricultural Village Societies
-interacted with neighboring communities, to recieve agricultural techniques
-has ties to the pioneering of settled vast areas of land
-incorporated the ideas and shared techniques of other societies into their culture and tradition

Chiefdoms
-more distinct elements of social inequality
-contained a hierarchy that relied on charisma, generosity, ritual status, or gift giving to receive temporary power of the people or temporary command
-high up officials (Chiefs) had a secular (community gatherings, economic direction, and warfare organizing)
-followed a senior lineage, where the oldest son of the current Chief would become the next Chief

So here are my questions-
Is there any overlap in the two contrasting societies that I have possibly glanced over?
Am I missing any key information?
Is the differentiating factors covered or is there a deeper analysis to be dung into?

Reply

Yasmeen Gaber

5/12/2016 08:39:21 pm

This seems very thorough, although I would point out that lineage systems were also prominent (overlap) in stateless agricultural societies, such as that of çatalhüyük. Even though the lineage did not determine inherited power and/or wealth, it still provided a form of "structure" in the society e.g. elders from each lineage would convene to discuss the agricultural tactics of the next seasons.

Reply

Mad Chase

5/12/2016 09:01:10 pm

Thank You so much Yasmeen!
Good Luck Tomorrow!

Eliza Pillsbury

5/12/2016 08:42:55 pm

I'll leave one more thing before going to bed because I think BPQ2 is intriguing. "How did early agricultural societies differ from those of the Paleolithic Era? How does the example of settled gathering and hunting peoples such as the Chumash complicate this comparison?'

Early agricultural societies
- domesticated plants and animals
- large settled communities, because more food can support more people
- technologically advanced ("secondary products revolution" and other developments such as metallurgy, textiles, and pottery)
- social inequality (developed over time in "stateless societies", inherent in "chiefdoms"
- farming was more labor-intensive
- more vulnerable to famine when wholly dependent on one area of the earth for food
- health worsened at first, as nutrition declined and labor increased

Paleolithic Era
- hunter-gatherers
- small, mobile communities
- no need for pots/textiles/metallurgy, as energy was spent on survival
- less social inequality
- healthier "broad spectrum diet"
- less labor, more time to dedicate elsewhere

THE CHUMASH!
- rule breakers: hunter-gatherers who settled in large communities
- lived in area of natural abundance (fish) with little need for agriculture
- social structure resembled that of agricultural chiefdom

I apologize for any mistakes, my brain is shutting down from stress. Good luck tomorrow guys!

Reply

Leave a Reply.

Bingham

Welcome class of 2019. Some years students collaborate in this space effectively, some years not so much. One thing I know, collaboration significantly enhances learning. If you want access to my thoughts, this is the collaboration space to use. Most people propose an answer to margin questions, big picture question, or anything else related to managing Strayer. Other people can then comment leading to a stronger answer. I'll keep an eye on these pages, and pop in when I think you need me.